Hi, We currently have SQL2000 running in a production environment with 2 commercial applications. I would like to use the same server to upsize some access applications, test and develope new internal applications. I have been warned by our IS dept, however, that I should not have any test applications on a production server as I run the risk of closing down/screwing up the performance the server (looping queries...etc) through the test applications.
They say I should buy another server, set alone as a test server, and only add the internal applications to the production server after thorough testing.
Of course , our IS dept offers no test or production server for our dept to use - so this gets pretty expensive for us.
My question - can I do both on one server or not?
thanks!
JeffIMHO I agree with your IS dept 100%. Now if your Production box has ample resources and your Production apps can stand some interference or down time due to a screw ups then why not.
BIG DISCALMER!! I can guarantee you that at some point someone will run something that will drag the system down or even (gulp) bring the server down. Just like your IS guys have pointed out.
In some shops the above would be unacceptable, maybe not in yours. You sort of have to way all the pros and cons. Would a low end server really cost that much considering the potential problem?|||RE: They say I should buy another server, set alone as a test server, and only add the internal applications to the production server after thorough testing. Of course , our IS dept offers no test or production server for our dept to use - so this gets pretty expensive for us.
Q1 Why not simply buy and use a low end workstation pc (to lower the costs install Win 2k Pro or XP) with the dev version (or even the 120 day eval) of Sql Server. One ought to be able to easily create that kind of test server for under $1K.
Q2 If $1K is too much, how about making some poor user's workstation (say yours) a dual boot OS box (install the test platform on the new install)? If you have test workstations and you are the one doing the testing you wouldn't need your workstation while you are doing tests anyway, or would you?|||Be very careful of installing evaluation editions of anything by microsoft. I did this with sql server version 7 and had to reinstall which destroyed everything - according to documentation ms has gotten better - but do so at your own risk. Anyway, a better solution is to use msde 1 or 2000 depending on what your solution requires. The following is a link that tells you how to get msde ...
link (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;en-us;324998&)|||Oh - to answer your question - of course you can install anything on the production server - the question is should you. Some people will debate that it is ok to have a test instance with a production instance. However, you can have so many issues with this design. IMO - You use the production for production only - no matter how well stacked your machine is - I have seen enough problems (like memory leaks, over enthusiastic sql statements ...) - Just get a cheapy peepy machine and install want you need - find free software or existing licenses so you have no/minimal costs with the software part.|||RE: Be very careful of installing evaluation editions of anything by microsoft. I did this with sql server version 7 and had to reinstall which destroyed everything - according to documentation ms has gotten better - but do so at your own risk.
Note: The low cost possibility (using a 120 day eval edition) was explicitly made in reference to use on a test server (as a means to further lower total test server costs).
RE: Anyway, a better solution is to use msde 1 or 2000 depending on what your solution requires.
NOTE: MSDE (and Desktop Sql Server editions) do have some intentional limitations built in. As long as you do not need to test any non-MSDE functionality, e.g. (DBs <= 2GB), MSDE is a good general functionality test environment (otherwise, the Sql Server dev. version is often "best", at a fairly reasonable cost). Accordingly, unless specifically deploying to MSDE, avoid using MSDE for any scalability / load testing purposes (or as a substitute for valid Sql Server product performance comparisons).|||MSDE is fully compatible with sql server - so once you have the money to buy that developers edition - no problems mate. Obviously, if you have the $500, then buy the developers edition. Even further - here is a quote from microsoft regarding msde:
"An attractive alternative to using the Microsoft Jet database, MSDE 2000 is designed primarily to provide a low-cost option for developers who need a database server that can be easily distributed and installed with a value-added business solution. Because it is fully compatible with other editions of SQL Server, developers can easily target both SQL Server and MSDE 2000 with the same core code base. This provides a seamless upgrade path from MSDE 2000 to SQL Server if an application grows beyond the storage and scalability limits of MSDE 2000."
MSDE is free without the headaches of the evaluation edition - a no brainer.
As far as the limitations - for the purpose of upsizing from access - this is no problem - even with the size limitation, since it is the same as access. The following article goes into depth about this:
article (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnacc2k/html/acmsdeop.asp)|||MSDE makes for a good general functionality test environment.
MSDE also often serves a variety of production purposes very well, (even though MSDE does have intentional limitations built in). However, MSDE is a licensed use product with licensed use requirements.
Some information (from MS) on some MSDE limitations: MSDE was TUNED { - "TUNED" may be regarded as a synonym for "CONSTRAINED" in this case - } to deliver the same performance you'd get using the SQL Server enterprise engine AT UP TO FIVE CONCURRENT USERS, and supports up to 2 gigabytes (GB) of data for any individual database. The storage limit is per database, not per server. A single MSDE server can support multiple MSDE databases, each containing up to the 2-GB limit. For more users, or when you need more data storage, you should use SQL Server or SQL Server Enterprise Edition for optimal performance at this higher level of scalability.
Unlike SQL Server, MSDE can't be a replication publisher (although it can act as a replication subscriber) in a transactional replication environment. Also, note that replication of MSDE databases is only possible if SQL Server Client Access Licenses (CALs) are purchased. If you require replication publishing, you'll want to use SQL Server Desktop rather than MSDE. (A CAL is also required for SQL Server Desktop.)
Some information (from MS) on products that permit licensed "free" use of MSDE:
Products that enable use and redistribution of MSDE:
SQL Server 2000 (Developer, Standard, and Enterprise Editions)
Visual Studio .NET (Architect, Developer, and Professional Editions)
ASP.NET Web Matrix Tool
Office XP Developer Edition
MSDN Universal and Enterprise subscriptions
Products that enable use but not redistribution:
Microsoft Access
Some other possible considerations: (see http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/msdeuse.asp)
Using MSDE does not reduce or eliminate the need for CALs when interacting with SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition or SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition in a production environment.
Q. Can I use SQL Server tools and services in conjunction with MSDE?
A. You can only use SQL Server tools and services in conjunction with MSDE if you acquired MSDE via SQL Server 2000 (any edition) or if you are using MSDE in conjunction with a properly licensed copy of SQL Server 2000. Visit the How to Buy page to obtain a valid SQL Server license.
The following utilities are installed by the MSDE setup application and are provided without restrictions for use with the copy of MSDE that is installed by your application: bcp.exe, cnfgsvr.exe, dcomscm.exe, osql.exe, sqlmangr.exe, scm.exe, sqladhlp.exe, and svrnetcn.exe. The dtsrun.exe utility is also provided, but may not be used during development.
Note: The following Visual Studio family of products also include the right to use and redistribute MSDE in this scenario: Microsoft Visual Basic .NET, Visual C# .NET, Visual C++ .NET, and Visual J# .NET.
Several Microsoft product licenses convey the right to use and redistribute the Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Desktop Engine (MSDE 2000) version 2.0. In all cases, you should refer to the End User License Agreement (EULA) for a full statement of the rights conveyed by your product license.
Showing posts with label applications. Show all posts
Showing posts with label applications. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Monday, March 26, 2012
Production DB Modifications
We have a production database that is being used by at least 20 different
applications. Some of the tables need to be modified (column added). Does
anybody have a good way or best method of changing table schemas, objects,
etc. without interrupting or at least minimizing the impact on the current
operations?Hello,
No. If you need to change the schema it defenetely require a downtime.
Thanks
Hari
"morphius" <morphius@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E5B38EC4-31D4-42EE-9C83-A180C04216EF@.microsoft.com...
> We have a production database that is being used by at least 20 different
> applications. Some of the tables need to be modified (column added). Does
> anybody have a good way or best method of changing table schemas, objects,
> etc. without interrupting or at least minimizing the impact on the current
> operations?|||"Hari Prasad" <hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e6a39HvKHHA.3936@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> No. If you need to change the schema it defenetely require a downtime.
>
Eh, really depends on the size of the schema change.
If the column has no defaults, adding it should be a trivial change. We do
these routinely on a 24x7 database.
If the column has defaults, the larger the table, the longer it will be
locked.
One way to NOT do it is via EM. In almost all cases, this will guarantee
the table will be locked, a new one with the updated schema created, and
then data loaded into it, then the original deleted and the new one renamed.
You really have to do these via a script, not via EM.
> Thanks
> Hari
> "morphius" <morphius@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E5B38EC4-31D4-42EE-9C83-A180C04216EF@.microsoft.com...
>> We have a production database that is being used by at least 20 different
>> applications. Some of the tables need to be modified (column added). Does
>> anybody have a good way or best method of changing table schemas,
>> objects,
>> etc. without interrupting or at least minimizing the impact on the
>> current
>> operations?
>
applications. Some of the tables need to be modified (column added). Does
anybody have a good way or best method of changing table schemas, objects,
etc. without interrupting or at least minimizing the impact on the current
operations?Hello,
No. If you need to change the schema it defenetely require a downtime.
Thanks
Hari
"morphius" <morphius@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E5B38EC4-31D4-42EE-9C83-A180C04216EF@.microsoft.com...
> We have a production database that is being used by at least 20 different
> applications. Some of the tables need to be modified (column added). Does
> anybody have a good way or best method of changing table schemas, objects,
> etc. without interrupting or at least minimizing the impact on the current
> operations?|||"Hari Prasad" <hari_prasad_k@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e6a39HvKHHA.3936@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> No. If you need to change the schema it defenetely require a downtime.
>
Eh, really depends on the size of the schema change.
If the column has no defaults, adding it should be a trivial change. We do
these routinely on a 24x7 database.
If the column has defaults, the larger the table, the longer it will be
locked.
One way to NOT do it is via EM. In almost all cases, this will guarantee
the table will be locked, a new one with the updated schema created, and
then data loaded into it, then the original deleted and the new one renamed.
You really have to do these via a script, not via EM.
> Thanks
> Hari
> "morphius" <morphius@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E5B38EC4-31D4-42EE-9C83-A180C04216EF@.microsoft.com...
>> We have a production database that is being used by at least 20 different
>> applications. Some of the tables need to be modified (column added). Does
>> anybody have a good way or best method of changing table schemas,
>> objects,
>> etc. without interrupting or at least minimizing the impact on the
>> current
>> operations?
>
Product error installs
I have a couple third part applications that I'm trying to install that
install SQL databases. However I get similar errors during both for the
install.
I'll end up w/ an Error 11001 in the app event log and the contents of the
error common to both is: Error 1001.Setup failed. --> Windows NT user or
group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the name again.
Windows NT user or group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the
name again.
User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.
User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.,
(NULL), (NULL), (NULL).
I've talked to a couple other users and they haven't experienced the same
issues. My server is set to mixed mode and the SA account does have a
password. I've tried installing using the SA account as well as a domain
admin account and neither worked.
Is the NT account you are using to install a member of the local server
Administrator group?
Brad Feaker
Ex nihilo, nihil fit
"Mike" wrote:
> I have a couple third part applications that I'm trying to install that
> install SQL databases. However I get similar errors during both for the
> install.
> I'll end up w/ an Error 11001 in the app event log and the contents of the
> error common to both is: Error 1001.Setup failed. --> Windows NT user or
> group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the name again.
> Windows NT user or group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the
> name again.
> User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.
> User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.,
> (NULL), (NULL), (NULL).
>
> I've talked to a couple other users and they haven't experienced the same
> issues. My server is set to mixed mode and the SA account does have a
> password. I've tried installing using the SA account as well as a domain
> admin account and neither worked.
|||Yes
"Brad Feaker" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Is the NT account you are using to install a member of the local server
> Administrator group?
> Brad Feaker
> Ex nihilo, nihil fit
> "Mike" wrote:
|||Try installing using a local system account and then changing the service
accounts after the install is complete.
Brad
"Mike" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yes
> "Brad Feaker" wrote:
|||Tried using the Administrator account on the local machine. Same problem.
"Brad Feaker" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Try installing using a local system account and then changing the service
> accounts after the install is complete.
> Brad
> "Mike" wrote:
|||Instead of using a windows account at all, choose the 'Local System Account'
option during the install.
Brad
"Mike" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Tried using the Administrator account on the local machine. Same problem.
> "Brad Feaker" wrote:
|||this is an interactive application that i'm trying to install so I'm not sure
there is a way to do what your asking. i'm assuming it comes to this error
some point where it's creating the db in sql. it's funny though the the db
and tables appear to be created fine.
"Brad Feaker" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Instead of using a windows account at all, choose the 'Local System Account'
> option during the install.
> Brad
> "Mike" wrote:
|||At this point you may want to toss the problem back to the vendor....sorry I
could not be of any assistance...
Brad
"Mike" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> this is an interactive application that i'm trying to install so I'm not sure
> there is a way to do what your asking. i'm assuming it comes to this error
> some point where it's creating the db in sql. it's funny though the the db
> and tables appear to be created fine.
> "Brad Feaker" wrote:
|||Thanks. I did so Monday. I believe they're stumped.
"Brad Feaker" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> At this point you may want to toss the problem back to the vendor....sorry I
> could not be of any assistance...
> Brad
> "Mike" wrote:
install SQL databases. However I get similar errors during both for the
install.
I'll end up w/ an Error 11001 in the app event log and the contents of the
error common to both is: Error 1001.Setup failed. --> Windows NT user or
group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the name again.
Windows NT user or group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the
name again.
User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.
User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.,
(NULL), (NULL), (NULL).
I've talked to a couple other users and they haven't experienced the same
issues. My server is set to mixed mode and the SA account does have a
password. I've tried installing using the SA account as well as a domain
admin account and neither worked.
Is the NT account you are using to install a member of the local server
Administrator group?
Brad Feaker
Ex nihilo, nihil fit
"Mike" wrote:
> I have a couple third part applications that I'm trying to install that
> install SQL databases. However I get similar errors during both for the
> install.
> I'll end up w/ an Error 11001 in the app event log and the contents of the
> error common to both is: Error 1001.Setup failed. --> Windows NT user or
> group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the name again.
> Windows NT user or group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the
> name again.
> User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.
> User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.,
> (NULL), (NULL), (NULL).
>
> I've talked to a couple other users and they haven't experienced the same
> issues. My server is set to mixed mode and the SA account does have a
> password. I've tried installing using the SA account as well as a domain
> admin account and neither worked.
|||Yes
"Brad Feaker" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Is the NT account you are using to install a member of the local server
> Administrator group?
> Brad Feaker
> Ex nihilo, nihil fit
> "Mike" wrote:
|||Try installing using a local system account and then changing the service
accounts after the install is complete.
Brad
"Mike" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yes
> "Brad Feaker" wrote:
|||Tried using the Administrator account on the local machine. Same problem.
"Brad Feaker" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Try installing using a local system account and then changing the service
> accounts after the install is complete.
> Brad
> "Mike" wrote:
|||Instead of using a windows account at all, choose the 'Local System Account'
option during the install.
Brad
"Mike" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Tried using the Administrator account on the local machine. Same problem.
> "Brad Feaker" wrote:
|||this is an interactive application that i'm trying to install so I'm not sure
there is a way to do what your asking. i'm assuming it comes to this error
some point where it's creating the db in sql. it's funny though the the db
and tables appear to be created fine.
"Brad Feaker" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Instead of using a windows account at all, choose the 'Local System Account'
> option during the install.
> Brad
> "Mike" wrote:
|||At this point you may want to toss the problem back to the vendor....sorry I
could not be of any assistance...
Brad
"Mike" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> this is an interactive application that i'm trying to install so I'm not sure
> there is a way to do what your asking. i'm assuming it comes to this error
> some point where it's creating the db in sql. it's funny though the the db
> and tables appear to be created fine.
> "Brad Feaker" wrote:
|||Thanks. I did so Monday. I believe they're stumped.
"Brad Feaker" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> At this point you may want to toss the problem back to the vendor....sorry I
> could not be of any assistance...
> Brad
> "Mike" wrote:
Product error installs
I have a couple third part applications that I'm trying to install that
install SQL databases. However I get similar errors during both for the
install.
I'll end up w/ an Error 11001 in the app event log and the contents of the
error common to both is: Error 1001.Setup failed. --> Windows NT user or
group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the name again.
Windows NT user or group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the
name again.
User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.
User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.,
(NULL), (NULL), (NULL).
I've talked to a couple other users and they haven't experienced the same
issues. My server is set to mixed mode and the SA account does have a
password. I've tried installing using the SA account as well as a domain
admin account and neither worked.Is the NT account you are using to install a member of the local server
Administrator group?
Brad Feaker
Ex nihilo, nihil fit
"Mike" wrote:
> I have a couple third part applications that I'm trying to install that
> install SQL databases. However I get similar errors during both for the
> install.
> I'll end up w/ an Error 11001 in the app event log and the contents of the
> error common to both is: Error 1001.Setup failed. --> Windows NT user or
> group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the name again.
> Windows NT user or group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the
> name again.
> User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.
> User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.,
> (NULL), (NULL), (NULL).
>
> I've talked to a couple other users and they haven't experienced the same
> issues. My server is set to mixed mode and the SA account does have a
> password. I've tried installing using the SA account as well as a domain
> admin account and neither worked.|||Yes
"Brad Feaker" wrote:
> Is the NT account you are using to install a member of the local server
> Administrator group?
> Brad Feaker
> Ex nihilo, nihil fit
> "Mike" wrote:
> > I have a couple third part applications that I'm trying to install that
> > install SQL databases. However I get similar errors during both for the
> > install.
> >
> > I'll end up w/ an Error 11001 in the app event log and the contents of the
> > error common to both is: Error 1001.Setup failed. --> Windows NT user or
> > group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the name again.
> > Windows NT user or group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the
> > name again.
> > User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.
> > User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.,
> > (NULL), (NULL), (NULL).
> >
> >
> > I've talked to a couple other users and they haven't experienced the same
> > issues. My server is set to mixed mode and the SA account does have a
> > password. I've tried installing using the SA account as well as a domain
> > admin account and neither worked.|||Try installing using a local system account and then changing the service
accounts after the install is complete.
Brad
"Mike" wrote:
> Yes
> "Brad Feaker" wrote:
> > Is the NT account you are using to install a member of the local server
> > Administrator group?
> >
> > Brad Feaker
> > Ex nihilo, nihil fit
> >
> > "Mike" wrote:
> >
> > > I have a couple third part applications that I'm trying to install that
> > > install SQL databases. However I get similar errors during both for the
> > > install.
> > >
> > > I'll end up w/ an Error 11001 in the app event log and the contents of the
> > > error common to both is: Error 1001.Setup failed. --> Windows NT user or
> > > group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the name again.
> > > Windows NT user or group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the
> > > name again.
> > > User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.
> > > User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.,
> > > (NULL), (NULL), (NULL).
> > >
> > >
> > > I've talked to a couple other users and they haven't experienced the same
> > > issues. My server is set to mixed mode and the SA account does have a
> > > password. I've tried installing using the SA account as well as a domain
> > > admin account and neither worked.|||Tried using the Administrator account on the local machine. Same problem.
"Brad Feaker" wrote:
> Try installing using a local system account and then changing the service
> accounts after the install is complete.
> Brad
> "Mike" wrote:
> > Yes
> >
> > "Brad Feaker" wrote:
> >
> > > Is the NT account you are using to install a member of the local server
> > > Administrator group?
> > >
> > > Brad Feaker
> > > Ex nihilo, nihil fit
> > >
> > > "Mike" wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have a couple third part applications that I'm trying to install that
> > > > install SQL databases. However I get similar errors during both for the
> > > > install.
> > > >
> > > > I'll end up w/ an Error 11001 in the app event log and the contents of the
> > > > error common to both is: Error 1001.Setup failed. --> Windows NT user or
> > > > group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the name again.
> > > > Windows NT user or group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the
> > > > name again.
> > > > User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.
> > > > User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.,
> > > > (NULL), (NULL), (NULL).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I've talked to a couple other users and they haven't experienced the same
> > > > issues. My server is set to mixed mode and the SA account does have a
> > > > password. I've tried installing using the SA account as well as a domain
> > > > admin account and neither worked.|||Instead of using a windows account at all, choose the 'Local System Account'
option during the install.
Brad
"Mike" wrote:
> Tried using the Administrator account on the local machine. Same problem.
> "Brad Feaker" wrote:
> > Try installing using a local system account and then changing the service
> > accounts after the install is complete.
> >
> > Brad
> >
> > "Mike" wrote:
> >
> > > Yes
> > >
> > > "Brad Feaker" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Is the NT account you are using to install a member of the local server
> > > > Administrator group?
> > > >
> > > > Brad Feaker
> > > > Ex nihilo, nihil fit
> > > >
> > > > "Mike" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I have a couple third part applications that I'm trying to install that
> > > > > install SQL databases. However I get similar errors during both for the
> > > > > install.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll end up w/ an Error 11001 in the app event log and the contents of the
> > > > > error common to both is: Error 1001.Setup failed. --> Windows NT user or
> > > > > group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the name again.
> > > > > Windows NT user or group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the
> > > > > name again.
> > > > > User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.
> > > > > User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.,
> > > > > (NULL), (NULL), (NULL).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I've talked to a couple other users and they haven't experienced the same
> > > > > issues. My server is set to mixed mode and the SA account does have a
> > > > > password. I've tried installing using the SA account as well as a domain
> > > > > admin account and neither worked.|||this is an interactive application that i'm trying to install so I'm not sure
there is a way to do what your asking. i'm assuming it comes to this error
some point where it's creating the db in sql. it's funny though the the db
and tables appear to be created fine.
"Brad Feaker" wrote:
> Instead of using a windows account at all, choose the 'Local System Account'
> option during the install.
> Brad
> "Mike" wrote:
> > Tried using the Administrator account on the local machine. Same problem.
> >
> > "Brad Feaker" wrote:
> >
> > > Try installing using a local system account and then changing the service
> > > accounts after the install is complete.
> > >
> > > Brad
> > >
> > > "Mike" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes
> > > >
> > > > "Brad Feaker" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Is the NT account you are using to install a member of the local server
> > > > > Administrator group?
> > > > >
> > > > > Brad Feaker
> > > > > Ex nihilo, nihil fit
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mike" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I have a couple third part applications that I'm trying to install that
> > > > > > install SQL databases. However I get similar errors during both for the
> > > > > > install.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll end up w/ an Error 11001 in the app event log and the contents of the
> > > > > > error common to both is: Error 1001.Setup failed. --> Windows NT user or
> > > > > > group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the name again.
> > > > > > Windows NT user or group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the
> > > > > > name again.
> > > > > > User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.
> > > > > > User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.,
> > > > > > (NULL), (NULL), (NULL).
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've talked to a couple other users and they haven't experienced the same
> > > > > > issues. My server is set to mixed mode and the SA account does have a
> > > > > > password. I've tried installing using the SA account as well as a domain
> > > > > > admin account and neither worked.|||At this point you may want to toss the problem back to the vendor....sorry I
could not be of any assistance...
Brad
"Mike" wrote:
> this is an interactive application that i'm trying to install so I'm not sure
> there is a way to do what your asking. i'm assuming it comes to this error
> some point where it's creating the db in sql. it's funny though the the db
> and tables appear to be created fine.
> "Brad Feaker" wrote:
> > Instead of using a windows account at all, choose the 'Local System Account'
> > option during the install.
> >
> > Brad
> >
> > "Mike" wrote:
> >
> > > Tried using the Administrator account on the local machine. Same problem.
> > >
> > > "Brad Feaker" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Try installing using a local system account and then changing the service
> > > > accounts after the install is complete.
> > > >
> > > > Brad
> > > >
> > > > "Mike" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > "Brad Feaker" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Is the NT account you are using to install a member of the local server
> > > > > > Administrator group?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Brad Feaker
> > > > > > Ex nihilo, nihil fit
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Mike" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have a couple third part applications that I'm trying to install that
> > > > > > > install SQL databases. However I get similar errors during both for the
> > > > > > > install.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'll end up w/ an Error 11001 in the app event log and the contents of the
> > > > > > > error common to both is: Error 1001.Setup failed. --> Windows NT user or
> > > > > > > group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the name again.
> > > > > > > Windows NT user or group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the
> > > > > > > name again.
> > > > > > > User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.
> > > > > > > User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.,
> > > > > > > (NULL), (NULL), (NULL).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've talked to a couple other users and they haven't experienced the same
> > > > > > > issues. My server is set to mixed mode and the SA account does have a
> > > > > > > password. I've tried installing using the SA account as well as a domain
> > > > > > > admin account and neither worked.|||Thanks. I did so Monday. I believe they're stumped.
"Brad Feaker" wrote:
> At this point you may want to toss the problem back to the vendor....sorry I
> could not be of any assistance...
> Brad
> "Mike" wrote:
> > this is an interactive application that i'm trying to install so I'm not sure
> > there is a way to do what your asking. i'm assuming it comes to this error
> > some point where it's creating the db in sql. it's funny though the the db
> > and tables appear to be created fine.
> >
> > "Brad Feaker" wrote:
> >
> > > Instead of using a windows account at all, choose the 'Local System Account'
> > > option during the install.
> > >
> > > Brad
> > >
> > > "Mike" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Tried using the Administrator account on the local machine. Same problem.
> > > >
> > > > "Brad Feaker" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Try installing using a local system account and then changing the service
> > > > > accounts after the install is complete.
> > > > >
> > > > > Brad
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mike" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Brad Feaker" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is the NT account you are using to install a member of the local server
> > > > > > > Administrator group?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Brad Feaker
> > > > > > > Ex nihilo, nihil fit
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Mike" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have a couple third part applications that I'm trying to install that
> > > > > > > > install SQL databases. However I get similar errors during both for the
> > > > > > > > install.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'll end up w/ an Error 11001 in the app event log and the contents of the
> > > > > > > > error common to both is: Error 1001.Setup failed. --> Windows NT user or
> > > > > > > > group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the name again.
> > > > > > > > Windows NT user or group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the
> > > > > > > > name again.
> > > > > > > > User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.
> > > > > > > > User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.,
> > > > > > > > (NULL), (NULL), (NULL).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've talked to a couple other users and they haven't experienced the same
> > > > > > > > issues. My server is set to mixed mode and the SA account does have a
> > > > > > > > password. I've tried installing using the SA account as well as a domain
> > > > > > > > admin account and neither worked.sql
install SQL databases. However I get similar errors during both for the
install.
I'll end up w/ an Error 11001 in the app event log and the contents of the
error common to both is: Error 1001.Setup failed. --> Windows NT user or
group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the name again.
Windows NT user or group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the
name again.
User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.
User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.,
(NULL), (NULL), (NULL).
I've talked to a couple other users and they haven't experienced the same
issues. My server is set to mixed mode and the SA account does have a
password. I've tried installing using the SA account as well as a domain
admin account and neither worked.Is the NT account you are using to install a member of the local server
Administrator group?
Brad Feaker
Ex nihilo, nihil fit
"Mike" wrote:
> I have a couple third part applications that I'm trying to install that
> install SQL databases. However I get similar errors during both for the
> install.
> I'll end up w/ an Error 11001 in the app event log and the contents of the
> error common to both is: Error 1001.Setup failed. --> Windows NT user or
> group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the name again.
> Windows NT user or group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the
> name again.
> User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.
> User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.,
> (NULL), (NULL), (NULL).
>
> I've talked to a couple other users and they haven't experienced the same
> issues. My server is set to mixed mode and the SA account does have a
> password. I've tried installing using the SA account as well as a domain
> admin account and neither worked.|||Yes
"Brad Feaker" wrote:
> Is the NT account you are using to install a member of the local server
> Administrator group?
> Brad Feaker
> Ex nihilo, nihil fit
> "Mike" wrote:
> > I have a couple third part applications that I'm trying to install that
> > install SQL databases. However I get similar errors during both for the
> > install.
> >
> > I'll end up w/ an Error 11001 in the app event log and the contents of the
> > error common to both is: Error 1001.Setup failed. --> Windows NT user or
> > group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the name again.
> > Windows NT user or group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the
> > name again.
> > User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.
> > User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.,
> > (NULL), (NULL), (NULL).
> >
> >
> > I've talked to a couple other users and they haven't experienced the same
> > issues. My server is set to mixed mode and the SA account does have a
> > password. I've tried installing using the SA account as well as a domain
> > admin account and neither worked.|||Try installing using a local system account and then changing the service
accounts after the install is complete.
Brad
"Mike" wrote:
> Yes
> "Brad Feaker" wrote:
> > Is the NT account you are using to install a member of the local server
> > Administrator group?
> >
> > Brad Feaker
> > Ex nihilo, nihil fit
> >
> > "Mike" wrote:
> >
> > > I have a couple third part applications that I'm trying to install that
> > > install SQL databases. However I get similar errors during both for the
> > > install.
> > >
> > > I'll end up w/ an Error 11001 in the app event log and the contents of the
> > > error common to both is: Error 1001.Setup failed. --> Windows NT user or
> > > group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the name again.
> > > Windows NT user or group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the
> > > name again.
> > > User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.
> > > User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.,
> > > (NULL), (NULL), (NULL).
> > >
> > >
> > > I've talked to a couple other users and they haven't experienced the same
> > > issues. My server is set to mixed mode and the SA account does have a
> > > password. I've tried installing using the SA account as well as a domain
> > > admin account and neither worked.|||Tried using the Administrator account on the local machine. Same problem.
"Brad Feaker" wrote:
> Try installing using a local system account and then changing the service
> accounts after the install is complete.
> Brad
> "Mike" wrote:
> > Yes
> >
> > "Brad Feaker" wrote:
> >
> > > Is the NT account you are using to install a member of the local server
> > > Administrator group?
> > >
> > > Brad Feaker
> > > Ex nihilo, nihil fit
> > >
> > > "Mike" wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have a couple third part applications that I'm trying to install that
> > > > install SQL databases. However I get similar errors during both for the
> > > > install.
> > > >
> > > > I'll end up w/ an Error 11001 in the app event log and the contents of the
> > > > error common to both is: Error 1001.Setup failed. --> Windows NT user or
> > > > group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the name again.
> > > > Windows NT user or group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the
> > > > name again.
> > > > User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.
> > > > User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.,
> > > > (NULL), (NULL), (NULL).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I've talked to a couple other users and they haven't experienced the same
> > > > issues. My server is set to mixed mode and the SA account does have a
> > > > password. I've tried installing using the SA account as well as a domain
> > > > admin account and neither worked.|||Instead of using a windows account at all, choose the 'Local System Account'
option during the install.
Brad
"Mike" wrote:
> Tried using the Administrator account on the local machine. Same problem.
> "Brad Feaker" wrote:
> > Try installing using a local system account and then changing the service
> > accounts after the install is complete.
> >
> > Brad
> >
> > "Mike" wrote:
> >
> > > Yes
> > >
> > > "Brad Feaker" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Is the NT account you are using to install a member of the local server
> > > > Administrator group?
> > > >
> > > > Brad Feaker
> > > > Ex nihilo, nihil fit
> > > >
> > > > "Mike" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I have a couple third part applications that I'm trying to install that
> > > > > install SQL databases. However I get similar errors during both for the
> > > > > install.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll end up w/ an Error 11001 in the app event log and the contents of the
> > > > > error common to both is: Error 1001.Setup failed. --> Windows NT user or
> > > > > group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the name again.
> > > > > Windows NT user or group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the
> > > > > name again.
> > > > > User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.
> > > > > User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.,
> > > > > (NULL), (NULL), (NULL).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I've talked to a couple other users and they haven't experienced the same
> > > > > issues. My server is set to mixed mode and the SA account does have a
> > > > > password. I've tried installing using the SA account as well as a domain
> > > > > admin account and neither worked.|||this is an interactive application that i'm trying to install so I'm not sure
there is a way to do what your asking. i'm assuming it comes to this error
some point where it's creating the db in sql. it's funny though the the db
and tables appear to be created fine.
"Brad Feaker" wrote:
> Instead of using a windows account at all, choose the 'Local System Account'
> option during the install.
> Brad
> "Mike" wrote:
> > Tried using the Administrator account on the local machine. Same problem.
> >
> > "Brad Feaker" wrote:
> >
> > > Try installing using a local system account and then changing the service
> > > accounts after the install is complete.
> > >
> > > Brad
> > >
> > > "Mike" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes
> > > >
> > > > "Brad Feaker" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Is the NT account you are using to install a member of the local server
> > > > > Administrator group?
> > > > >
> > > > > Brad Feaker
> > > > > Ex nihilo, nihil fit
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mike" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I have a couple third part applications that I'm trying to install that
> > > > > > install SQL databases. However I get similar errors during both for the
> > > > > > install.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll end up w/ an Error 11001 in the app event log and the contents of the
> > > > > > error common to both is: Error 1001.Setup failed. --> Windows NT user or
> > > > > > group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the name again.
> > > > > > Windows NT user or group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the
> > > > > > name again.
> > > > > > User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.
> > > > > > User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.,
> > > > > > (NULL), (NULL), (NULL).
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've talked to a couple other users and they haven't experienced the same
> > > > > > issues. My server is set to mixed mode and the SA account does have a
> > > > > > password. I've tried installing using the SA account as well as a domain
> > > > > > admin account and neither worked.|||At this point you may want to toss the problem back to the vendor....sorry I
could not be of any assistance...
Brad
"Mike" wrote:
> this is an interactive application that i'm trying to install so I'm not sure
> there is a way to do what your asking. i'm assuming it comes to this error
> some point where it's creating the db in sql. it's funny though the the db
> and tables appear to be created fine.
> "Brad Feaker" wrote:
> > Instead of using a windows account at all, choose the 'Local System Account'
> > option during the install.
> >
> > Brad
> >
> > "Mike" wrote:
> >
> > > Tried using the Administrator account on the local machine. Same problem.
> > >
> > > "Brad Feaker" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Try installing using a local system account and then changing the service
> > > > accounts after the install is complete.
> > > >
> > > > Brad
> > > >
> > > > "Mike" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > "Brad Feaker" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Is the NT account you are using to install a member of the local server
> > > > > > Administrator group?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Brad Feaker
> > > > > > Ex nihilo, nihil fit
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Mike" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have a couple third part applications that I'm trying to install that
> > > > > > > install SQL databases. However I get similar errors during both for the
> > > > > > > install.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'll end up w/ an Error 11001 in the app event log and the contents of the
> > > > > > > error common to both is: Error 1001.Setup failed. --> Windows NT user or
> > > > > > > group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the name again.
> > > > > > > Windows NT user or group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the
> > > > > > > name again.
> > > > > > > User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.
> > > > > > > User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.,
> > > > > > > (NULL), (NULL), (NULL).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've talked to a couple other users and they haven't experienced the same
> > > > > > > issues. My server is set to mixed mode and the SA account does have a
> > > > > > > password. I've tried installing using the SA account as well as a domain
> > > > > > > admin account and neither worked.|||Thanks. I did so Monday. I believe they're stumped.
"Brad Feaker" wrote:
> At this point you may want to toss the problem back to the vendor....sorry I
> could not be of any assistance...
> Brad
> "Mike" wrote:
> > this is an interactive application that i'm trying to install so I'm not sure
> > there is a way to do what your asking. i'm assuming it comes to this error
> > some point where it's creating the db in sql. it's funny though the the db
> > and tables appear to be created fine.
> >
> > "Brad Feaker" wrote:
> >
> > > Instead of using a windows account at all, choose the 'Local System Account'
> > > option during the install.
> > >
> > > Brad
> > >
> > > "Mike" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Tried using the Administrator account on the local machine. Same problem.
> > > >
> > > > "Brad Feaker" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Try installing using a local system account and then changing the service
> > > > > accounts after the install is complete.
> > > > >
> > > > > Brad
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mike" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Brad Feaker" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is the NT account you are using to install a member of the local server
> > > > > > > Administrator group?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Brad Feaker
> > > > > > > Ex nihilo, nihil fit
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Mike" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have a couple third part applications that I'm trying to install that
> > > > > > > > install SQL databases. However I get similar errors during both for the
> > > > > > > > install.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'll end up w/ an Error 11001 in the app event log and the contents of the
> > > > > > > > error common to both is: Error 1001.Setup failed. --> Windows NT user or
> > > > > > > > group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the name again.
> > > > > > > > Windows NT user or group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the
> > > > > > > > name again.
> > > > > > > > User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.
> > > > > > > > User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.,
> > > > > > > > (NULL), (NULL), (NULL).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've talked to a couple other users and they haven't experienced the same
> > > > > > > > issues. My server is set to mixed mode and the SA account does have a
> > > > > > > > password. I've tried installing using the SA account as well as a domain
> > > > > > > > admin account and neither worked.sql
Product error installs
I have a couple third part applications that I'm trying to install that
install SQL databases. However I get similar errors during both for the
install.
I'll end up w/ an Error 11001 in the app event log and the contents of the
error common to both is: Error 1001.Setup failed. --> Windows NT user or
group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the name again.
Windows NT user or group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the
name again.
User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.
User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.,
(NULL), (NULL), (NULL).
I've talked to a couple other users and they haven't experienced the same
issues. My server is set to mixed mode and the SA account does have a
password. I've tried installing using the SA account as well as a domain
admin account and neither worked.Is the NT account you are using to install a member of the local server
Administrator group?
Brad Feaker
Ex nihilo, nihil fit
"Mike" wrote:
> I have a couple third part applications that I'm trying to install that
> install SQL databases. However I get similar errors during both for the
> install.
> I'll end up w/ an Error 11001 in the app event log and the contents of the
> error common to both is: Error 1001.Setup failed. --> Windows NT user or
> group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the name again.
> Windows NT user or group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the
> name again.
> User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.
> User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.,
> (NULL), (NULL), (NULL).
>
> I've talked to a couple other users and they haven't experienced the same
> issues. My server is set to mixed mode and the SA account does have a
> password. I've tried installing using the SA account as well as a domain
> admin account and neither worked.|||Yes
"Brad Feaker" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Is the NT account you are using to install a member of the local server
> Administrator group?
> Brad Feaker
> Ex nihilo, nihil fit
> "Mike" wrote:
>|||Try installing using a local system account and then changing the service
accounts after the install is complete.
Brad
"Mike" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yes
> "Brad Feaker" wrote:
>|||Tried using the Administrator account on the local machine. Same problem.
"Brad Feaker" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Try installing using a local system account and then changing the service
> accounts after the install is complete.
> Brad
> "Mike" wrote:
>|||Instead of using a windows account at all, choose the 'Local System Account'
option during the install.
Brad
"Mike" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Tried using the Administrator account on the local machine. Same problem.
> "Brad Feaker" wrote:
>|||this is an interactive application that i'm trying to install so I'm not sur
e
there is a way to do what your asking. i'm assuming it comes to this error
some point where it's creating the db in sql. it's funny though the the db
and tables appear to be created fine.
"Brad Feaker" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Instead of using a windows account at all, choose the 'Local System Accoun
t'
> option during the install.
> Brad
> "Mike" wrote:
>|||At this point you may want to toss the problem back to the vendor....sorry
I
could not be of any assistance...
Brad
"Mike" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> this is an interactive application that i'm trying to install so I'm not s
ure
> there is a way to do what your asking. i'm assuming it comes to this erro
r
> some point where it's creating the db in sql. it's funny though the the d
b
> and tables appear to be created fine.
> "Brad Feaker" wrote:
>|||Thanks. I did so Monday. I believe they're stumped.
"Brad Feaker" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> At this point you may want to toss the problem back to the vendor....sorr
y I
> could not be of any assistance...
> Brad
> "Mike" wrote:
>
install SQL databases. However I get similar errors during both for the
install.
I'll end up w/ an Error 11001 in the app event log and the contents of the
error common to both is: Error 1001.Setup failed. --> Windows NT user or
group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the name again.
Windows NT user or group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the
name again.
User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.
User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.,
(NULL), (NULL), (NULL).
I've talked to a couple other users and they haven't experienced the same
issues. My server is set to mixed mode and the SA account does have a
password. I've tried installing using the SA account as well as a domain
admin account and neither worked.Is the NT account you are using to install a member of the local server
Administrator group?
Brad Feaker
Ex nihilo, nihil fit
"Mike" wrote:
> I have a couple third part applications that I'm trying to install that
> install SQL databases. However I get similar errors during both for the
> install.
> I'll end up w/ an Error 11001 in the app event log and the contents of the
> error common to both is: Error 1001.Setup failed. --> Windows NT user or
> group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the name again.
> Windows NT user or group 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' not found. Check the
> name again.
> User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.
> User or role 'NT AUTHORITY\domain users' does not exist in this database.,
> (NULL), (NULL), (NULL).
>
> I've talked to a couple other users and they haven't experienced the same
> issues. My server is set to mixed mode and the SA account does have a
> password. I've tried installing using the SA account as well as a domain
> admin account and neither worked.|||Yes
"Brad Feaker" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Is the NT account you are using to install a member of the local server
> Administrator group?
> Brad Feaker
> Ex nihilo, nihil fit
> "Mike" wrote:
>|||Try installing using a local system account and then changing the service
accounts after the install is complete.
Brad
"Mike" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Yes
> "Brad Feaker" wrote:
>|||Tried using the Administrator account on the local machine. Same problem.
"Brad Feaker" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Try installing using a local system account and then changing the service
> accounts after the install is complete.
> Brad
> "Mike" wrote:
>|||Instead of using a windows account at all, choose the 'Local System Account'
option during the install.
Brad
"Mike" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Tried using the Administrator account on the local machine. Same problem.
> "Brad Feaker" wrote:
>|||this is an interactive application that i'm trying to install so I'm not sur
e
there is a way to do what your asking. i'm assuming it comes to this error
some point where it's creating the db in sql. it's funny though the the db
and tables appear to be created fine.
"Brad Feaker" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Instead of using a windows account at all, choose the 'Local System Accoun
t'
> option during the install.
> Brad
> "Mike" wrote:
>|||At this point you may want to toss the problem back to the vendor....sorry
I
could not be of any assistance...
Brad
"Mike" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> this is an interactive application that i'm trying to install so I'm not s
ure
> there is a way to do what your asking. i'm assuming it comes to this erro
r
> some point where it's creating the db in sql. it's funny though the the d
b
> and tables appear to be created fine.
> "Brad Feaker" wrote:
>|||Thanks. I did so Monday. I believe they're stumped.
"Brad Feaker" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> At this point you may want to toss the problem back to the vendor....sorr
y I
> could not be of any assistance...
> Brad
> "Mike" wrote:
>
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Processor Licensing question
I have a dual processor system. One processor is used for boot operations
and the other is used for Applications. If I were to install SQL Single
Processior License on this machine would that be within the Licensing
restrictions as there is the one processor for Applications or would I need
another license? Thanks.
--
George Hester
_________________________________If I remember correctly, SQL will automatically limit itself when using
the per processor license. If not, you can set the CPU affinity to 1
to make sure it only uses 1.
George Hester wrote:
> I have a dual processor system. One processor is used for boot operations
> and the other is used for Applications. If I were to install SQL Single
> Processior License on this machine would that be within the Licensing
> restrictions as there is the one processor for Applications or would I need
> another license? Thanks.
> --
> George Hester
> _________________________________|||"PSPDBA" <DissendiumDBA@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150209890.143128.128400@.f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> If I remember correctly, SQL will automatically limit itself when using
> the per processor license. If not, you can set the CPU affinity to 1
> to make sure it only uses 1.
>
With Per-Proc licensing you must license SQL Server on all processers
visible to the OS instance where SQL is running.
If you want to run a single proc of SQL on a multi-proc box that is used for
multiple different workloads, you can use Virtual Server 2003 R2, install a
new OS that can only see one processor, and install a single-proc license of
SQL Server on that OS instance.
From:
Virtualization and Multiple Instances
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/multipleinstances.mspx
Each virtual operating environment running SQL Sever 2005 must have a
processor license for each processor that the virtual machine accesses. If a
copy of SQL Server is running on a physical operating environment, then
processor licenses are required for all of the processors on that physical
server.
David
and the other is used for Applications. If I were to install SQL Single
Processior License on this machine would that be within the Licensing
restrictions as there is the one processor for Applications or would I need
another license? Thanks.
--
George Hester
_________________________________If I remember correctly, SQL will automatically limit itself when using
the per processor license. If not, you can set the CPU affinity to 1
to make sure it only uses 1.
George Hester wrote:
> I have a dual processor system. One processor is used for boot operations
> and the other is used for Applications. If I were to install SQL Single
> Processior License on this machine would that be within the Licensing
> restrictions as there is the one processor for Applications or would I need
> another license? Thanks.
> --
> George Hester
> _________________________________|||"PSPDBA" <DissendiumDBA@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150209890.143128.128400@.f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> If I remember correctly, SQL will automatically limit itself when using
> the per processor license. If not, you can set the CPU affinity to 1
> to make sure it only uses 1.
>
With Per-Proc licensing you must license SQL Server on all processers
visible to the OS instance where SQL is running.
If you want to run a single proc of SQL on a multi-proc box that is used for
multiple different workloads, you can use Virtual Server 2003 R2, install a
new OS that can only see one processor, and install a single-proc license of
SQL Server on that OS instance.
From:
Virtualization and Multiple Instances
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/multipleinstances.mspx
Each virtual operating environment running SQL Sever 2005 must have a
processor license for each processor that the virtual machine accesses. If a
copy of SQL Server is running on a physical operating environment, then
processor licenses are required for all of the processors on that physical
server.
David
Monday, March 12, 2012
ProcessId remains in memory?
Can anyone help here. I monitor SQL Server EM (2000) SP4 running on Windows
Server 2003 and notice that applications that have been running during the
day, have more and more ProcessID's for the same application. The
applications sometimes is closed by the user, sometimes crash, but usually
they will (after a refresh of EM) not show. I see the Host name in the list
of items in Process Info, and now see that each machine has multiple entries
for the same application. It seems that the process Info remains fixed in
server memory.
Anyone know why this should have just started to happed. As far as I can
tell, only the clients would have any updates (MS Updates and fixes) the
client application has not changed apart from cosmetically. The connection
is through ADODB MDAC 2.8
Thanks for the time. Hope this is clear.
The only times I have seen behavior like what I think you are
describing it was always a problem with the application. Rather than
using the connection it already had open, it kept opening a new
connection with each command. It was easy to see when monitoring
using Performance Monitor, watching the number of connections
climbing.
Which is not to say that your problem is the same, but it sure sounds
familiar.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 12:23:26 -0000, "Steve"
<hughessatmdnationwide.co.uk> wrote:
>Can anyone help here. I monitor SQL Server EM (2000) SP4 running on Windows
>Server 2003 and notice that applications that have been running during the
>day, have more and more ProcessID's for the same application. The
>applications sometimes is closed by the user, sometimes crash, but usually
>they will (after a refresh of EM) not show. I see the Host name in the list
>of items in Process Info, and now see that each machine has multiple entries
>for the same application. It seems that the process Info remains fixed in
>server memory.
>Anyone know why this should have just started to happed. As far as I can
>tell, only the clients would have any updates (MS Updates and fixes) the
>client application has not changed apart from cosmetically. The connection
>is through ADODB MDAC 2.8
>Thanks for the time. Hope this is clear.
|||Thanks, I believe that you are right, one of our developers did m ake a
change to the application, and did not free a query after use. This I think
has kept the connections open. I thought that SQL Server would release
unused connections after a period of inactivity but I guess that is not the
case. Oh well back to the drawing board
thanks for the input.
regards
steve
"Roy Harvey" <roy_harvey@.snet.net> wrote in message
news:6jpp02dg831g66klbjtrt1isq4c2jquldk@.4ax.com... [vbcol=seagreen]
> The only times I have seen behavior like what I think you are
> describing it was always a problem with the application. Rather than
> using the connection it already had open, it kept opening a new
> connection with each command. It was easy to see when monitoring
> using Performance Monitor, watching the number of connections
> climbing.
> Which is not to say that your problem is the same, but it sure sounds
> familiar.
> Roy Harvey
> Beacon Falls, CT
>
> On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 12:23:26 -0000, "Steve"
> <hughessatmdnationwide.co.uk> wrote:
Server 2003 and notice that applications that have been running during the
day, have more and more ProcessID's for the same application. The
applications sometimes is closed by the user, sometimes crash, but usually
they will (after a refresh of EM) not show. I see the Host name in the list
of items in Process Info, and now see that each machine has multiple entries
for the same application. It seems that the process Info remains fixed in
server memory.
Anyone know why this should have just started to happed. As far as I can
tell, only the clients would have any updates (MS Updates and fixes) the
client application has not changed apart from cosmetically. The connection
is through ADODB MDAC 2.8
Thanks for the time. Hope this is clear.
The only times I have seen behavior like what I think you are
describing it was always a problem with the application. Rather than
using the connection it already had open, it kept opening a new
connection with each command. It was easy to see when monitoring
using Performance Monitor, watching the number of connections
climbing.
Which is not to say that your problem is the same, but it sure sounds
familiar.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 12:23:26 -0000, "Steve"
<hughessatmdnationwide.co.uk> wrote:
>Can anyone help here. I monitor SQL Server EM (2000) SP4 running on Windows
>Server 2003 and notice that applications that have been running during the
>day, have more and more ProcessID's for the same application. The
>applications sometimes is closed by the user, sometimes crash, but usually
>they will (after a refresh of EM) not show. I see the Host name in the list
>of items in Process Info, and now see that each machine has multiple entries
>for the same application. It seems that the process Info remains fixed in
>server memory.
>Anyone know why this should have just started to happed. As far as I can
>tell, only the clients would have any updates (MS Updates and fixes) the
>client application has not changed apart from cosmetically. The connection
>is through ADODB MDAC 2.8
>Thanks for the time. Hope this is clear.
|||Thanks, I believe that you are right, one of our developers did m ake a
change to the application, and did not free a query after use. This I think
has kept the connections open. I thought that SQL Server would release
unused connections after a period of inactivity but I guess that is not the
case. Oh well back to the drawing board
thanks for the input.
regards
steve
"Roy Harvey" <roy_harvey@.snet.net> wrote in message
news:6jpp02dg831g66klbjtrt1isq4c2jquldk@.4ax.com... [vbcol=seagreen]
> The only times I have seen behavior like what I think you are
> describing it was always a problem with the application. Rather than
> using the connection it already had open, it kept opening a new
> connection with each command. It was easy to see when monitoring
> using Performance Monitor, watching the number of connections
> climbing.
> Which is not to say that your problem is the same, but it sure sounds
> familiar.
> Roy Harvey
> Beacon Falls, CT
>
> On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 12:23:26 -0000, "Steve"
> <hughessatmdnationwide.co.uk> wrote:
ProcessId remains in memory?
Can anyone help here. I monitor SQL Server EM (2000) SP4 running on Windows
Server 2003 and notice that applications that have been running during the
day, have more and more ProcessID's for the same application. The
applications sometimes is closed by the user, sometimes crash, but usually
they will (after a refresh of EM) not show. I see the Host name in the list
of items in Process Info, and now see that each machine has multiple entries
for the same application. It seems that the process Info remains fixed in
server memory.
Anyone know why this should have just started to happed. As far as I can
tell, only the clients would have any updates (MS Updates and fixes) the
client application has not changed apart from cosmetically. The connection
is through ADODB MDAC 2.8
Thanks for the time. Hope this is clear.The only times I have seen behavior like what I think you are
describing it was always a problem with the application. Rather than
using the connection it already had open, it kept opening a new
connection with each command. It was easy to see when monitoring
using Performance Monitor, watching the number of connections
climbing.
Which is not to say that your problem is the same, but it sure sounds
familiar.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 12:23:26 -0000, "Steve"
<hughessatmdnationwide.co.uk> wrote:
>Can anyone help here. I monitor SQL Server EM (2000) SP4 running on Windows
>Server 2003 and notice that applications that have been running during the
>day, have more and more ProcessID's for the same application. The
>applications sometimes is closed by the user, sometimes crash, but usually
>they will (after a refresh of EM) not show. I see the Host name in the list
>of items in Process Info, and now see that each machine has multiple entries
>for the same application. It seems that the process Info remains fixed in
>server memory.
>Anyone know why this should have just started to happed. As far as I can
>tell, only the clients would have any updates (MS Updates and fixes) the
>client application has not changed apart from cosmetically. The connection
>is through ADODB MDAC 2.8
>Thanks for the time. Hope this is clear.|||Thanks, I believe that you are right, one of our developers did m ake a
change to the application, and did not free a query after use. This I think
has kept the connections open. I thought that SQL Server would release
unused connections after a period of inactivity but I guess that is not the
case. Oh well back to the drawing board
thanks for the input.
regards
steve
"Roy Harvey" <roy_harvey@.snet.net> wrote in message
news:6jpp02dg831g66klbjtrt1isq4c2jquldk@.4ax.com...
> The only times I have seen behavior like what I think you are
> describing it was always a problem with the application. Rather than
> using the connection it already had open, it kept opening a new
> connection with each command. It was easy to see when monitoring
> using Performance Monitor, watching the number of connections
> climbing.
> Which is not to say that your problem is the same, but it sure sounds
> familiar.
> Roy Harvey
> Beacon Falls, CT
>
> On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 12:23:26 -0000, "Steve"
> <hughessatmdnationwide.co.uk> wrote:
>>Can anyone help here. I monitor SQL Server EM (2000) SP4 running on
>>Windows
>>Server 2003 and notice that applications that have been running during the
>>day, have more and more ProcessID's for the same application. The
>>applications sometimes is closed by the user, sometimes crash, but usually
>>they will (after a refresh of EM) not show. I see the Host name in the
>>list
>>of items in Process Info, and now see that each machine has multiple
>>entries
>>for the same application. It seems that the process Info remains fixed in
>>server memory.
>>Anyone know why this should have just started to happed. As far as I can
>>tell, only the clients would have any updates (MS Updates and fixes) the
>>client application has not changed apart from cosmetically. The connection
>>is through ADODB MDAC 2.8
>>Thanks for the time. Hope this is clear.
Server 2003 and notice that applications that have been running during the
day, have more and more ProcessID's for the same application. The
applications sometimes is closed by the user, sometimes crash, but usually
they will (after a refresh of EM) not show. I see the Host name in the list
of items in Process Info, and now see that each machine has multiple entries
for the same application. It seems that the process Info remains fixed in
server memory.
Anyone know why this should have just started to happed. As far as I can
tell, only the clients would have any updates (MS Updates and fixes) the
client application has not changed apart from cosmetically. The connection
is through ADODB MDAC 2.8
Thanks for the time. Hope this is clear.The only times I have seen behavior like what I think you are
describing it was always a problem with the application. Rather than
using the connection it already had open, it kept opening a new
connection with each command. It was easy to see when monitoring
using Performance Monitor, watching the number of connections
climbing.
Which is not to say that your problem is the same, but it sure sounds
familiar.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 12:23:26 -0000, "Steve"
<hughessatmdnationwide.co.uk> wrote:
>Can anyone help here. I monitor SQL Server EM (2000) SP4 running on Windows
>Server 2003 and notice that applications that have been running during the
>day, have more and more ProcessID's for the same application. The
>applications sometimes is closed by the user, sometimes crash, but usually
>they will (after a refresh of EM) not show. I see the Host name in the list
>of items in Process Info, and now see that each machine has multiple entries
>for the same application. It seems that the process Info remains fixed in
>server memory.
>Anyone know why this should have just started to happed. As far as I can
>tell, only the clients would have any updates (MS Updates and fixes) the
>client application has not changed apart from cosmetically. The connection
>is through ADODB MDAC 2.8
>Thanks for the time. Hope this is clear.|||Thanks, I believe that you are right, one of our developers did m ake a
change to the application, and did not free a query after use. This I think
has kept the connections open. I thought that SQL Server would release
unused connections after a period of inactivity but I guess that is not the
case. Oh well back to the drawing board
thanks for the input.
regards
steve
"Roy Harvey" <roy_harvey@.snet.net> wrote in message
news:6jpp02dg831g66klbjtrt1isq4c2jquldk@.4ax.com...
> The only times I have seen behavior like what I think you are
> describing it was always a problem with the application. Rather than
> using the connection it already had open, it kept opening a new
> connection with each command. It was easy to see when monitoring
> using Performance Monitor, watching the number of connections
> climbing.
> Which is not to say that your problem is the same, but it sure sounds
> familiar.
> Roy Harvey
> Beacon Falls, CT
>
> On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 12:23:26 -0000, "Steve"
> <hughessatmdnationwide.co.uk> wrote:
>>Can anyone help here. I monitor SQL Server EM (2000) SP4 running on
>>Windows
>>Server 2003 and notice that applications that have been running during the
>>day, have more and more ProcessID's for the same application. The
>>applications sometimes is closed by the user, sometimes crash, but usually
>>they will (after a refresh of EM) not show. I see the Host name in the
>>list
>>of items in Process Info, and now see that each machine has multiple
>>entries
>>for the same application. It seems that the process Info remains fixed in
>>server memory.
>>Anyone know why this should have just started to happed. As far as I can
>>tell, only the clients would have any updates (MS Updates and fixes) the
>>client application has not changed apart from cosmetically. The connection
>>is through ADODB MDAC 2.8
>>Thanks for the time. Hope this is clear.
ProcessId remains in memory?
Can anyone help here. I monitor SQL Server EM (2000) SP4 running on Windows
Server 2003 and notice that applications that have been running during the
day, have more and more ProcessID's for the same application. The
applications sometimes is closed by the user, sometimes crash, but usually
they will (after a refresh of EM) not show. I see the Host name in the list
of items in Process Info, and now see that each machine has multiple entries
for the same application. It seems that the process Info remains fixed in
server memory.
Anyone know why this should have just started to happed. As far as I can
tell, only the clients would have any updates (MS Updates and fixes) the
client application has not changed apart from cosmetically. The connection
is through ADODB MDAC 2.8
Thanks for the time. Hope this is clear.The only times I have seen behavior like what I think you are
describing it was always a problem with the application. Rather than
using the connection it already had open, it kept opening a new
connection with each command. It was easy to see when monitoring
using Performance Monitor, watching the number of connections
climbing.
Which is not to say that your problem is the same, but it sure sounds
familiar.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 12:23:26 -0000, "Steve"
<hughessatmdnationwide.co.uk> wrote:
>Can anyone help here. I monitor SQL Server EM (2000) SP4 running on Windows
>Server 2003 and notice that applications that have been running during the
>day, have more and more ProcessID's for the same application. The
>applications sometimes is closed by the user, sometimes crash, but usually
>they will (after a refresh of EM) not show. I see the Host name in the list
>of items in Process Info, and now see that each machine has multiple entrie
s
>for the same application. It seems that the process Info remains fixed in
>server memory.
>Anyone know why this should have just started to happed. As far as I can
>tell, only the clients would have any updates (MS Updates and fixes) the
>client application has not changed apart from cosmetically. The connection
>is through ADODB MDAC 2.8
>Thanks for the time. Hope this is clear.|||Thanks, I believe that you are right, one of our developers did m ake a
change to the application, and did not free a query after use. This I think
has kept the connections open. I thought that SQL Server would release
unused connections after a period of inactivity but I guess that is not the
case. Oh well back to the drawing board
thanks for the input.
regards
steve
"Roy Harvey" <roy_harvey@.snet.net> wrote in message
news:6jpp02dg831g66klbjtrt1isq4c2jquldk@.
4ax.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> The only times I have seen behavior like what I think you are
> describing it was always a problem with the application. Rather than
> using the connection it already had open, it kept opening a new
> connection with each command. It was easy to see when monitoring
> using Performance Monitor, watching the number of connections
> climbing.
> Which is not to say that your problem is the same, but it sure sounds
> familiar.
> Roy Harvey
> Beacon Falls, CT
>
> On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 12:23:26 -0000, "Steve"
> <hughessatmdnationwide.co.uk> wrote:
>
Server 2003 and notice that applications that have been running during the
day, have more and more ProcessID's for the same application. The
applications sometimes is closed by the user, sometimes crash, but usually
they will (after a refresh of EM) not show. I see the Host name in the list
of items in Process Info, and now see that each machine has multiple entries
for the same application. It seems that the process Info remains fixed in
server memory.
Anyone know why this should have just started to happed. As far as I can
tell, only the clients would have any updates (MS Updates and fixes) the
client application has not changed apart from cosmetically. The connection
is through ADODB MDAC 2.8
Thanks for the time. Hope this is clear.The only times I have seen behavior like what I think you are
describing it was always a problem with the application. Rather than
using the connection it already had open, it kept opening a new
connection with each command. It was easy to see when monitoring
using Performance Monitor, watching the number of connections
climbing.
Which is not to say that your problem is the same, but it sure sounds
familiar.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 12:23:26 -0000, "Steve"
<hughessatmdnationwide.co.uk> wrote:
>Can anyone help here. I monitor SQL Server EM (2000) SP4 running on Windows
>Server 2003 and notice that applications that have been running during the
>day, have more and more ProcessID's for the same application. The
>applications sometimes is closed by the user, sometimes crash, but usually
>they will (after a refresh of EM) not show. I see the Host name in the list
>of items in Process Info, and now see that each machine has multiple entrie
s
>for the same application. It seems that the process Info remains fixed in
>server memory.
>Anyone know why this should have just started to happed. As far as I can
>tell, only the clients would have any updates (MS Updates and fixes) the
>client application has not changed apart from cosmetically. The connection
>is through ADODB MDAC 2.8
>Thanks for the time. Hope this is clear.|||Thanks, I believe that you are right, one of our developers did m ake a
change to the application, and did not free a query after use. This I think
has kept the connections open. I thought that SQL Server would release
unused connections after a period of inactivity but I guess that is not the
case. Oh well back to the drawing board
thanks for the input.
regards
steve
"Roy Harvey" <roy_harvey@.snet.net> wrote in message
news:6jpp02dg831g66klbjtrt1isq4c2jquldk@.
4ax.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> The only times I have seen behavior like what I think you are
> describing it was always a problem with the application. Rather than
> using the connection it already had open, it kept opening a new
> connection with each command. It was easy to see when monitoring
> using Performance Monitor, watching the number of connections
> climbing.
> Which is not to say that your problem is the same, but it sure sounds
> familiar.
> Roy Harvey
> Beacon Falls, CT
>
> On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 12:23:26 -0000, "Steve"
> <hughessatmdnationwide.co.uk> wrote:
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)